Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Speaking of Ron Paul hit pieces...

"The only possible argument for [believing the federal government lacks constitutional authority to ban drugs] would involve a sweeping expansion of the fictitious 'right to privacy'—a whole-cloth invention of the Warren Court that conservatives (and originalists) generally hate."

Really? That's the "only possible" argument? What about the fact that banning drugs is not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8? What constitutional authority does Medved think justifies the drug war? The current ridiculous interpretation of the Commerce Clause? The same one that's been incorrectly used to justify Obamacare and the vast expansion of federal power over the last 100 years?

Fortunately, judging from the comments such as those below, people aren't buying this BS. Look at the thumbs up vs. down. That's a good sign.

Prohibition taught us that criminalizing vices is an enormous waste of time and resources, and only turns the whole business over to the underworld. The trillions of dollars we routinely throw out the window would be better spent on education and rehab. Ron Paul is not the crackpot here, Mr. Medved.

how would you describe a presidential candidate who insists that the federal government has no right to interfere with states rights to deal with prostitution & drug laws? i would describe him or her as someone who has read the constitution.

Another example of the corrupt media.Thank you, Ron Paul, for sticking to your priciples.It's already obvious that this piece is backfiring on Medved.This country is in sad shape when it no longer recognizes liberty and free speech, or worse, tries to suppress it.You have my vote, Dr. Paul.